Talk:Manual of Style

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.

This is the talk page for the page "Wookieepedia:Manual of Style."

This space is used for discussion relating to changes to the article, not for a discussion about the topic in question. For general questions about the article's topic, please visit the Knowledge Bank. Please remember to stay civil and sign all of your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Click here to start a new topic.

Contents

"# Referred to by feminine pronouns (she, her)" - I think it would help establish a more encylopedic tone to refer to all starships as "it". Naval officers and starship captains may refer to their ships as "shes", but we are neither of those. It would help keep an objective feel. If a particular character, such as Han Solo, commonly refers to a ship as a particular gender, it should be noted in the article. Otherwise, it would be ethno/xeno-centric to assume that from an IU perspective, all species are bi-gender, or have a naval history dominated by heterosexual males. --SparqMan 22:45, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

If you think an encyclopedia does not use the feminine pronoun in reference to ships, I refer you to this Wikipedia article, which is one of many. Calling a ship "it" is often considered an insult to both the crew and the ship's builders.

"Naval officers and starship captains may refer to their ships as "she", but we are neither of those."

Neither are some of us subjects of the British empire, but it is still considered courtesy to refer to Her Majesty as such. Some of us are not Jewish, but it would be courtesy to don a Yarmulke when entering a temple. Referring to a ship as "she" is likewise traditional and courteous.

"...all species are bi-gender, or have a naval history dominated by heterosexual males."

Which is true of His Imperial Majesty's navy, which was the dominant navy of the galaxy. I do not think it too far a stretch IU to make such an assumption of all navies. for a RW reference, the Japanese navy does not use ship prefixes, but many western authors use HIJMS, which is used to prevent accusations of the author considering that navy unequal to others.--Eion 22:59, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd say it's a pretty grey area, given the sheer scope of the galaxy, and the relatively fleeting existance of the Empire. Open to personal preferance perhaps? Personally, I find it jarring to read it in the feminine style, but I'm sure there are others that have the opposite opinion. I don't suppose we can really say until we have more information from the material? --Fade 23:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be fair to say that Imperial warships would be referred to as "she"; I don't think that is too much of a leap of faith. The Rebellion might refer to their ships in some neutral manner. The problem is we need a universal standard. I was merely trying to apply the universal standard of our universe to this one. Using "she" also prevents pronoun confusion in long articles, b/c "she" is used only to refer to specific ships, not classes.--Eion 23:35, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Anyone know how the Hapans do it, with their matriarchal society? I haven't read Courtship of Princess Leia yet. Or the Old Republic, throughout it's long history?-LtNOWIS 00:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the "ship as a she" rule can be abolished. De facto nobody follows it anyway. - Sikon 15:23, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Unless a ship's proper name includes the type of ship, it should not be capitalized. For example: "Carrack-class light cruiser" vs. "Carrack-class Light Cruiser". We might want to include this. --SparqMan 23:35, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

One sticking point will be Star Destroyers. Is Star Destroyer a ship type (an unfortunate situation if it is), or is it part of their proper name? --SparqMan 01:36, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

In all my guides, Star Destoyer is capitalized when referring to classes (ex: Victory-class Star Destroyer)

Ship types in the SWU seem to fall into two levels, "normal", and "Star". A Carrack-class light-cruiser is levels of magnitude less powerful than a Thunder-class star cruiser (okay, I just made that name up). But, there is no clear consensus on this yet. Star Destroyer is also a general name for any large, wedge shaped ship of GE and NR. There is much confusion.--Eion 01:57, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I prefer the second in cases of long or important quotations.--Eion 02:44, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I like it on any website when block quotes are in boxes (like your second option), but I don't like it on MediaWiki wikis for the simple reason that it disallows word wrap. -- Aidje 02:57, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

If you put in line breaks you can avoid it going over the side, but it take time to find out where to put in your breaks. Shadowtrooper 03:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

More importantly than our own comfort (maybe (-:), where the line breaks should in fact go is not a solid fact. Consider different screen resolutions, different font sizes depending on personal preference or accessibility needs, or perhaps someone who just doesn't maximize their browser like we do (or do we all, eh?). -- Aidje 03:44, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

"Class names are italicized only when a spaceship in the class bears the same name."

This method of using lead ships to name ship classes is common amongst American and European navies (although they differ on which ship is considered first), while the British name a class and then have all ships in it use the same letter (Thor-class cruiser would yield ships named Thunderous or Thane). It may also be that many of the names we see are reporting names used by adversaries to identify enemy vessels. Militaries are not prone to publishing their Order of Battle. What I'm getting to is that we should carefully assess the canon materials to ascertain which ships are named after lead ships (resulting in the italicization rule above) and which are not, as we have done recently with the Dreadnought heavy cruiser. --SparqMan 03:34, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

As we have Star Destroyers with names ranging from ideals, (Indomitable), to titles (Imperator), to creatures (Chimera), we might safely assume they are using the American-style and that the class is indeed named after the lead-ship of the class. In the case of the Imperator/Imperial, the lead ship’s name was obviously changed, and the class name was changed along with it. But you're right, it's a sticky wicket to be sure--Eion 03:43, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

The Imperator was rechristened? Do you have proof for this? I have no reason to believe that "imperial class" is something other than a colloquial use of the formal Imperator-class.--Gen.d 09:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

The so-called Guardian-Consular dichotomy is based on RPG material by Wizards of the Coast, which were the basis for the computer games series Knights of the Old Republic. Though I don't automatically disregard Rpg-material when it comes to judging canonicity, one has to understand that the Dungeons&Dragons-inspired approach (character classes) does not translate well into the Star Wars universe. I find no film reference on it whatsoever and no evidence that the so-called guardians are better fighters and worse diplomats. Therefore I edited the passage that basically implied the following: As a Guardian, Windu should not be as good a diplomat as he is. I suggest completely refraining from something that in my eyes is just as bad as fanon. -- Gen.d 18:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

This should be moved to the Community Portal talk page. It is not related to the Manual of Style, unless you are questioning the validity of RPG material as a canon source. If that is the case, your view is not supported by LucasFilm, Ltd. --SparqMan 18:46, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

It's a question of style whether or not to mention a "character class" in a character description (that's what happened in the Mace Windu article). I strongly recommend to include this in the Manual. --Gen.d 09:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC) ---Besides, I adressed my pov on canon in this matter, even though it is as irrelevant for this point as LucasArts': Even if character stats are canon (outrageous!), I judge it bad style to include them.

Can anyone (admin) perhaps mention that the IU tense of this wiki is the past tense? There are so many articles whose authors seem to not be educated about this. --Imperialles 18:02, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

True, we should point out the the past tense should be used in most cases. However, there are some cases where present tense should be used (for instance, entirely OOU articles about an actor, video game, or film), as pointed out in Talk:Main Page#Tense. Anyway, the policy on tense should definitely be in the Manual of Style. --Silly Dan 23:54, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, even in universe, I would argue some articles should be partially in present tense. Saying something like "Trianiihad fur" seems to me to imply that the Trianii all either went extinct or began to shave themselves at some point. Similarly, if an article said "Abregado-Fuswas the fourth planet from the star Anza", that makes it sound like the planet was destroyed or moved. Most of the current articles on planets and species are in mixed tense, which I would argue is perfectly fine. --Silly Dan 23:50, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

My point is that I think mixed-tense is perfectly acceptable, not barely acceptable. If the consensus is that everything should be in past tense, that's fine, and we can edit everything in List of races and species and Planets of Star Wars into pure past tense. All the same, I'd really like someone to give a reason why we should be writing articles that imply the Trianii are extinct and Adregado-Fus was destroyed. --Silly Dan 12:40, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

True, I agree that we shouldn't force anybody to create sentences that imply such things. But the question is not what to enforce, but what to recommend, isn't it? --Gen.d 12:41, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, if a certain style is recommended, it will end up being enforced by the editing done by other Wookieepedians, right? Silly Dan 21:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Silly Dan, I see your point on giving presumption to the extinction of species and destruction of planets, but there are two good reasons I see for creating a consistent past tense form here. The first, as stated above, is to create consistency. It will be easier for writers to keep one tense. The second is that unlike a project like Wikipedia, we commonly do not have all the details for articles. An article on, say, Kit Fisto is only based on the history and details that we have been provided so far, but clearly there are other parts of his history that we are not privvy to because they have simply not been detailed in a source yet. With that in mind, it seems best to write this as if it has been pieced together from the scraps of history left over from the GFFA millennia after that last "dated" event in a source. I hope that was clear (I rambled a bit at the end). --SparqMan 12:56, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Perfectly clear -- one big advantage to saying "past tense on everything" is that it's simple. Newcomers will know which parts of their article should be in present tense if we suggest that none of it should be. It would be a little more complicated to say "present tense on everything that's likely to stay the same, like a species' physical characteristics or a planet's location, but past tense everywhere else." If I were writing this on my own, I'd prefer a mixed tense, but this should be determined by consensus, and I'm in the minority right now. 8) Silly Dan 21:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I think I agree with you. Past tense on everything seems a bit much. It's especially strange when writing about species, planets, and things like the Force. You'd think that the Force would stick around. I suppose midi-chlorians could become extinct, but that would only eliminate the connection to the Force, not the Force itself. – Aidjetalk 21:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I seem to have lost the argument at this point. I'll be putting any new alien articles entirely in past tense (though I'm still not convinced it's necessarily the best solution.) Silly Dan 18:38, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Star Wars universe takes place along, long time ago, though. It's supposed to be in the past. I say keep articles on characters, races species, etc. past tense (except for behind the scenes sections), and articles on movies, books, comics, etc. as present. --Imperialles 22:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Do you think it would be a good idea to include something on the Style page about the reasons for past tense? This might help newcomers (such as myself) understand and accept this policy, and perhaps not everyone will read the talk page. It could be something like "All in universe articles should be in past tense. The reasons for this are twofold. Firstly, the articles on Wookipedia are presented as historical recordings that have been pieced together from scraps of information left over from the GFFA millennia. As such, all details pertaining to this history have not yet been uncovered, and more information may be added at a later date. Keeping articles written in past tense provides consistency and flavor. Secondly, the Star Wars universe takes place along, long time ago, in the past. Writing in universe articles in past tense properly relates the timeline of that universe with our own perspective."--Culix 14:16, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Can we settle on a style for birth and death dates? There seem to be three main options:

Dooku (102 BBY - 19 BBY) was a weak character and plot device...

Dooku (born 102 BBY - died 19 BBY) should have been Darth Maul...

Dooku (b. 102 BBY - d. 19 BBY) was an attempt to legitimize the movie with top name actor...

Any others that I missed before we begin the discussion? --SparqMan 13:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The only other possibility I can think of (the old-school asterisk-cross method) is too difficult to do with our fixed character set. Of the ones you've mentioned, I think the first gets the point across with a minimum of typing. jSarek 20:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some articles elaborate on the citiation by adding ISBN numbers and dates. (A lot of other contributors would cite the author as "Denning, Troy" in this case, too -- I don't, because that's not standard practice in my field.) Other articles just give the book title, trusting the user to follow the link to that article to find the publisher and author. Further, I'm not sure if it's best to cite a movie appearance as Episode I, The Phantom Menace, or Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace. Any opinions? Silly Dan 23:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think, in a world with hyperlinks, that citing and linking the source's title is sufficient. People wanting to further pursue the topic can follow the link. As for citing the movies, I think the fuller version looks more professional, but so long as the links go to the right place, I think all three are acceptable. jSarek 01:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Appearances only require the title. References require more, and should be consistent no matter the type of source (movie, book, comic, etc.). A complete source reference should include the author(s), title, publisher, copyright year and the author believes the topic will be difficult to find (something without an index or table of contents that lists the topic referenced) the page/scene should be included as well. The style I use echoes the common format on Wikipedia:

I think that is the most professional, repsonsible and helpful method. --SparqMan 01:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree most with jSarek. I think quoting the source is sufficient, unless you can give more detail as to a page number or an article title. I think author, publisher, ISBN, year-published, etc. info is redundant because it is all information that should be in the source book's page to which you link. As to how to cite a movie appearance, I think the best way is to use the full (non-redirected) title of the article (e.g. Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace). WhiteBoy 22:43, 5 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I agree with jSarek here. And I think we really need to make a decision and put it in the Manual of Style as soon as possible, because at the moment there are just too many variations throughout the whole wiki. --Azizlight 04:18, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Should we make some sort of distinction between the two since they keep getting mixed up? If I'm not mistaken, all Sith are Dark Jedi, but not all Dark Jedi are Sith. -- Shadowtrooper 02:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dark Jedi = Jedi gone bad. Sith = People who have specifically joined the Sith. For example, Vader and Tyranus could be considered both, but Darth Maul and Darth Sidious are pure Sith (as they were never Jedi), whereas Xanatos, Jerec and others are Dark Jedi. QuentinGeorge 03:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. For example, Boc and the Nightsisters never had any formal Jedi training, but yet are not associated with the Sith in any way. Piequals3 08:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there a standard way to format/list sources? I've seen a number here, so I'm not sure.

There is not. Academics can hardly settle on one of twenty major formats, and Wikipedia doesn't either. Likewise, so long as the major information is conveyed (author, title, publisher, year), you're fine. --SparqMan 14:07, 20 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I think we really need a guide as to how a page should be structured. The below example is a suggestion, based on the unnofficial format that most Wookieepedians seem to be following already (though I'm not sure about the placement of the Succession Box). I think this should be one of the first entries in the Manual of Style.

If we choose to continue with the use of succession boxes, a practice I find to be an exercise in redundancy and request for fanon, they seem to fit best at the end of the article. --SparqMan 01:55, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I think this structure is necessary. Contrary to popular belief, not everyone knows the correct format to structure an article. Case in point: I didn't know that stubs apparently go before appearances, and I've never seen it written anywhere on here that they do. I mean, how are we supposed to follow the format if only a select few *KNOW* the format? Unless a policy is established, people are just going to format it however they like. StarNeptune 02:32, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I was also surprised by the stub placement commments. Placing it in the middle is out of place. --SparqMan 02:44, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Placing the stub in the middle of the article is jarring and interrupts the flow of the article, IMO. I prefer it at the very bottom, just after a succession box (if applicable). StarNeptune 03:00, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)

It seems to be a de facto convention that "See also" follows "Sources", so it must be number 7. Sikon [Talk] 02:47, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Okay, a revision based on the above comments so far...

Main Article

Behind the scenes

Appearances

Sources

See also

External links

Succession box

Stub

I am also not a fan of succession boxes, and i'd be happy to see them gone.
I also think the "stub" notifications make any article look ugly, maybe we could just replace them with a small symbol or something. --Azizlight 03:43, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I think that list looks good so far. If stubs need to be changed, then we need something small and unobtrusive. Maybe a small box or just the word "stub" at the bottom of the article. I'm sure we can figure something out. StarNeptune 23:37, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Click here for discussion (and visual example) about a new look for the stub. --Azizlight 23:42, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I do not think stubs need to go all the way on the bottom. The reason a stub is where it is marks the end of the text that needs expanding. BTS, Appearances, and Sources do not belong to this. See also and external links remain farther down. I'm sticking with the first arrangement, but the succession box remains on the bottom. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:19, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the 2nd revision, except with the stub tag right after the behind the scenes section. After BtS, there really isn't much in the way of text. I think succession boxes are awesome. They're used effectively for the Mandalores and for most of the Sith. But they should be at the end of articles. But a uniform style would definitely be great.-LtNOWIS 04:31, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Riff about the placement of the stub; it makes more sense to put it just after the main text, and i also think it looks uglier somehow when it's under the Sources section. Also not sure if See also should go above or below External links, or perhaps even higher up.

Support. (If we're writing this up, we should also make notes about what each section is for — some editors are getting "see also" and "external links" mixed up, and I'm still not sure if a mention in dialogue counts as an appearance or a source. — Silly Dan

Good idea about the notes thing. I'd say a mention in dialogue would simply be a source, not an appearance. --beeurd 19:15, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Support. (We should also have a note about stub usage and classification.) -LtNOWIS 01:38, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I have begun a revision of the Manual of Style; the current version is here: Wookieepedia:Manual of Style/working. The aim is to better reflect de facto conventions that contradict the existing MOS (like "it" and "the" for ships) and Community Portal/Consensus track decisions. - Sikon [Talk] 06:38, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Is there a standard system for units of weight, measurement, and other things we should use on Wookipedia? I notice some pages like Ysalamiri use both metric centimeters and imperial feet. Should we pick one and explicity state it? (I would vote metric, as all official Star Wars matrial I have seen seems to use meters). --Culix 22:25, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you there (of course, I say one should use metric in real life anyway.) — Silly Dan 02:12, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I usually find units in metric, however having English units can still be helpful to us. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:57, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Metric. Because: 1) Star Wars material is usually metric, as is sci-fi in general, 2) this is supposed to an international site, and 3) the metric system is just plain better. – Aidjetalk 06:48, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Interesting point Riffsyphon. Does anyone think it would be worthwhile to include both units to help out those who prefer imperial measurements? Personally I would vote no, just because I think it would clutter up the page. It's a valid point though. --Culix 03:45, 1 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Do we have any standard for out of universe material? I'm wondering about two things in particular. First, what the standard for headings is: I've seen "Plot", "Plot summary", "Plot synopsis", "Brief plot synopsis", "Synopsis", "Summary", etc. Second, tense in synopses. Since this is an analysis of a literary work rather than an encyclopedic detailing of in-universe events, I was always taught to use present tense (the publisher's summaries do this too). But I don't know if we treat events in synopses here the same as encyclopedic narratives. - Lord Hydronium 18:50, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

On pages about books/games/movies, the overview should be presented in present tense. There is no standard yet—maybe you should create one to bring up for consensus.--SparqMan 20:04, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Awhile back we decided that a short description for article titles was okay. For example, "KX9 laser cannon" instead of KX9. The reasoning was that it provided some extra information. Now, we encounter a few problems with this, particularly in weapon systems. Back to the previous example, the KX9 was likely a standard laser cannon that could be turret-mounted or dual barreled. If a ship lists a KX9 laser turret, we would likely make an article as "KX9 laser cannon turret", when in reality, it was just a KX9 laser cannon. As long as the article describes the weapon and the description is not a part of the equipment proper name (like the Taim & Bak MegaCannon Plus), I think we should just drop it back to KX9. Thoughts? --SparqMan 06:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

If it was simply KX9 and there happened to be another thing with that designation we'd have to disambig it, whereas a longer more descriptive name would be better. Also company names like Taim & Bak would not be included. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Disambig'ing would be fine because we have a standard for handling that. --SparqMan 18:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm planning to make weapon stubs for a load of redlinks, so it would be nice to have a consensus on this. It doesn't matter much to me which way we do it. —Darth Culator(talk) 14:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Most of those article will not be stubs—they'll be short articles as we rarely know more than what vehicle on which they were used. --SparqMan 18:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Can we establish a rule for whether or not to use periods at the end of an image caption? It seems Wikipedia uses periods. I don't mind either way, but we need to decide. --Azizlight 00:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The MoS says we should say "Executor", "Tantive IV", etc., rather than "the Executor", "the Tantive IV", etc. On the other hand, Han Solo always refers to his ship with the definite article ("You've never heard of theMillennium Falcon?", "Take the Falcon"), etc. As an ex-Imperial Starfleet officer, you think he'd know the proper procedure....maybe the definite article is only omitted for capital ships? —Silly Dan(talk) 03:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I noticed, as per the consensus track, that it says to use the "most widely known" name. Is there a better way to phrase this, because as it stands, it suggests Thrawn should be at that title. Maybe something about only their real name, or not to use a nickname? - Lord Hydronium 06:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Usually, this is a bad thing to add, but there are a few cases where the story is clearly unfinished (for example, Nas Ghent or PD-28.) Maybe the text should say we usually shouldn't add it? —Silly Dan(talk) 23:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I think something should be added to the Manual of Style that specifies that out-of-universe don't have to be written in past tense. I think we push the past tense thing so much on the in-universe articles sometimes that some people think it applies to all articles. -- Ozzel 04:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been actively editing the Quote:Han Solo page and have noticed that it is significantly different from many of the other Quote:* pages. I would like to recommend that we come up with a standard layout for a Quote: page, perhaps based on a particular Quote: page that is particularly good.

Also, we need some sort of standard method for writing quotes in context, where a quote doesn't make sense without dialog from another character. Example:

Han: I love you.
Leia: I know.

The Han solo quote makes no sense without Leia's response, and is therefore necessary on the Quote:Han Solo page.

Isn't that the other way around? Han said "I know". -- Riffsyphon1024 06:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The above is from the bunker shoot-out scene in ROTJ. Quotes should be written as if from a script, just as above -it'd be the easiest way to follow who says what line.Tocneppil 17:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

What are you referring to? The 'Quotes within articles' section only applies to article quotes and the policy was unanimously approved in the consensus track Forum:CT Archive/Quotes.–SentryTalk 01:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there a "Manual of Style" rule for how the main pictures of the articles should be? I had heard once that the main picture of the article should be a full body shot of the character, if possible, but I haven't ever seen that written anywhere. Anyone else ever hear of that before? Thanks for your help. Sadriel Fett(Mando'a) 22:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Currently, the Manual of Style has a part that is incorrect according to English grammar rules. "The" is not to be used in front of ship names. I realize that this has been brought up before, because I was a part of it. But regardless of how sources show names of ships, "the" should not come before the ship name. Just like we don't say "the Darth Vader" or "the Luke Skywalker", we don't say "the Executor" or "the Home One". I'm asking for this error to be fixed. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax(Imperial Holovision) 15:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This was decided a while ago in the Consensus Track. I don't like it much either, but it has already been the subject of much debate and I really don't like opening closed topics like this. -- Darth Culator(Talk)(Kills) 15:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

A lot of sailors in the real world would disagree with you on this one, Jack.Tocneppil 09:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As I pointed out in the CT, so would the Star Wars Encyclopedia, every line of dialogue in the films where Academy graduate Han Solo talks about his ship, and in many cases the Canadian Press (yes, I know, we use American English here, I just wanted to point out it's not always "improper" or "casual.") —Silly Dan(talk) 23:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like a case-by-case basis thing. Millenium Falcon always gets a "the", whereas Home One does not. I'm not sure you can apply a rule like that to all ships in existance. Maclimes Zero(talk) 23:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A quick check of wikipedia showed that in the article Naming conventions (ships), a subsection on referring to ships says quote:"'The' is not needed (but neither is it wrong)". I believe, Jack that 'proper grammar' is not all-encompassing when dealing with certain uses of a word, ie. 'hung' instead of 'hanged','irregardless' for 'regardless'. In the case of 'The', I'm sure there is more to it than just bad grammar. It is possible that sailors use it because they refer to the ships they serve on by specific names (as opposed to just 'the ship') so there's no confusion as to who is crewing aboard which ship when in port.Tocneppil 01:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

While style guides are split (as long as you're consistent), I support avoiding the definite article, for the same reasons since this debate began almost two years ago. Besides the fact that most Western naval style guides support avoiding it (with the exception of particularly notable ships), it is a good deprecated style, because it works for all ship names, while use of the definite article with some ships sounds odd. — SparqManTalk 06:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the need for both New continuity and Appearances sections for an OOU article. Many items will be repeated if both are listed (see List for "Appearances" and "New continuity"). several article such as the SW films only have these items listed in Appearances. It can also be complicated determining if an item is truly "new" or not. Thoughts? -Fnlayson 17:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

To cover some articles that still use a New continuity section, what about making it "not preferred" or something to that effect? -Fnlayson 19:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I still like having the lists separated so that they are easy to tell apart at a moment's glance. In addition, it keeps the "Appearances" list from getting messier, and it keeps us from using the various {{1st}} templates so many times. —Xwing328(Talk) 20:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

But at the same time, it adds excessive space to the TOC. Adamwankenobi 20:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Many items (Characters/Individuals, Ships, Creatures, etc) will be repeated if they are listed like the MoS List for "Appearances" and "New continuity" suggests. Something needs to be clarified there, I think. I'm mainly think of the film articles with bunches of items listed. I think either Appearances item list or New continuity list would be enough, but that might just be me. -Fnlayson 21:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"New Continuity" might be useful for storyline clarifications appearing in "non-fiction" works (like The New Essential Guide to Droids establishing that the Jedi Exile was a woman.) —Silly Dan(talk) 22:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay from what I understand of the Caps section, things like Jedi Master Luke Skywalker or Sith Lord Darth Sidious should be capped, as should The Jedi Order or The Sith. But what about when you use it as a descriptive like "He was a jedi/sith." or "He was a Jedi/Sith."N.Y.N.E.Comlink 05:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Jedi and Sith are titles also and should be capitalized. At least that's how they are treated here. -Fnlayson 19:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

For appearances of individuals etc. within a source, is it policy to list these in alphabetical order, rather than in order of appearance? The former is most common, though a few articles use the latter; this seems far more difficult to regulate, as it's hard to discern a list ordered in this way and one that simply needs alphabetizing. Should all lists then be A-Z, or perhaps a note added to those listed in chronological order? - Captain Kwenn– Talk 14:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

They're supposed to be alphabetical. I'm pretty sure this was made policy at some point, but it was probably never added to the MoS or Layout Guide. —Xwing328(Talk) 20:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the most recent CT regarding the apostrophe S issue? I see that the MoS wasn't updated, so what happened to it? The current MoS version says that it should always be s's, not "just be consistent within an article". - TopAce(Talk) 19:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

As I was working on fixing the Appearances section for Star Wars: The Clone Wars (video game), I was debating over whether or not I should add specifics (ie, sector names before planet names, class before vessel name, ect). Eventually, I decided to not go into such detail, though I am still curious as to where we draw the line on these types of things. Looking at other articles as examples proves useless, since they all seem inconsistent.

In case I'm not being very clear (which is probably so), when do we use:

I apologize if this has been discussed before. // ~mikah~ 22:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It depends, really. If "Kashyyyk system" or "transport" are directly mentioned in the source, then I'd say it would be okay to include them, but if they weren't then I'd go for the latter. That's how I see it, anyway. -- AdmirableAckbar(Talk) 21:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

So only when mentioned/seen. Got it. :) By the way, should we also use the New continuity sections? No one article seems to use them, as far as I can see, and they wouldn't be applied to articles where it would add a ridiculous sense of chaos (ie, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic), of course. But it was my impression regardless that they were added to the manual for a reason. // ~mikah~ 01:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

We already have {{1st}} in order to state "(First appearance)". I say we replace all "New Continuity" sections of the pages and merge them with the lists with the {{1st}} template. Otherwise, the pages become too cluttered and long, with aspects on continuity too difficult to look up. Dude984[Communications]-[Contributions] 18:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Correction Needed - First Modern Galactic Civil War was the 'Clone Wars' - Right? Edit

The First Modern Galactic Civil War would be the 'Clone Wars'. The Second Modern Galactic Civil War was the 'Rebellion'. The Third Modern Galactic Civil War was the 'Second Corellian Crisis'. Yet I see articles that label the 'Rebellion' the first one and the 'Second Corellian Crisis' the second one. BUT the 'Clone Wars' would really be the first. Note my use of the term MODERN. This means I'm not including ancient TOTJ and KOTOR conflicts in my equation. I really think some reconsideration is needed on the labeling of modern galactic civil wars.—Unsigned comment byJonton Harrow (talk • contribs).

Nevertheless, the terms "Clone Wars", "Galactic Civil War" and "Second Galactic Civil War" are the names given in the primary sources, so we shouldn't rename them. —Silly Dan(talk) 12:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

In Apostrophes and possessives ending in "s", the example of "For example, while discussing the armor of multiple Mandalorians, one would write 'Mandalorians' armor'; but while discussing the armor of Darth Nihilus, one would write 'Nihilus's armor'" is given. However, this is a holdover from the previous version before the latest CT on the issue. So, while "Nihilus's armor" is not incorrect, it shouldn't be listed as what we should do, but merely an (encouraged?) option. I've seen people get confused by it on more than one occasion. -- AdmirableAckbar(Talk) 19:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

So after reading the talk page for "Darth Caedus" and the ongoing arguments about naming the article, I came here for a better understanding of why Caedus is preferrable to Jacen Solo. (In an attempt to understand the argument better.) So I see here the rule about what the article naming convention is, but I didn't see an explanation why. I saw no archives either. Is the reason why covered in the "basic" info in wikipedia (which I've also looked up and discovered to be less than concise and/or helpful) or was there a discussion and consensus that is archived somewhere for me to read up on?

To further demonstrate my inquiry, I could ask "Why is the article named Darth Caedus and not Jacen Solo?' The answer is "Because it confroms to the guidlines set in the manual of style." This is asking, "why is that the guideline set in the manual of style?" I've found no explanation after my own research. Please advise. Medleystudios72 20:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I am only part way through reading it and it appears to be exactly what I was looking for. Thank you very much. Medleystudios72 17:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't help but to notice that this discussion took place before the LotF-series was even released. Jacen's Sith title was revealed even much later, in 2007. Now, I'm not saying that the rules should be bent for every single character that appears in the universum, but Jacen Solo ist just too big a thing. This Revelation is probably the biggest event in the EU, as was said in another discussion. And that big surprise is simply given away by the title. I know some of the participants here say that people who look for Jacen Solo on this wiki without knowing his whole story are stupid (on the discussion page of 'Darth Caedus'). But we should also remember that this is primarily a wiki for fans. And Jacen also appears in many other stories, so there will be people who will look for him while reading other books. And I think we are spoiling a great story for them. I think there should be a new rule or an exception for Jacen Solo. Even by the current consensus the last name is not necessary, only preferred. The first thing mentioned is "Most commonly known name in universe", and that is still Jacen Solo. And there is also the thing of continuity, all other articles of Sith Lords are named according to their birth names. - TCRS 01:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

"[A]ll other articles of Sith Lords are named according to their birth names." Oh, really? Darth Malak (Alek Squinquargesimus), Darth Bane (Dessel), and Darth Krayt (A'Sharad Hett) would like to have a talk with you. -- Darth Culator(Talk) 02:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, my bad. I was thinking more of Anakin, Palpatine etc. In the case of these three Sith Lords, well that is their most commonly known name. - TCRS 03:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

To put an end to this long disagreement i have a line from OMEN "For a few seconds at the end, Jaina had assured them all he'd been Jacen again, not Darth Caedus."
if you want to debate this feel free but it is clearly written as such on page 55 of Omen so the article should be changed to Jacen Solo.--T-Rex1 21:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Here, it will take less time for you to simply read the discussion on the subject and see where your contribution will change nothing. Dangerdan97 15:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That discussion seems to be unfinished. Somebody just decided that it should stay Darth Caedus while the strong and valid arguments of others are ignored. However the Darth Caedus page refers to the Manual of Style and I made an argument two topics above. TCRS 18:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

In that case, forget I said anything. —Silly Dan(talk) 19:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Then i say we use both names like so Jacen Solo/Darth Caedus it is fair and this way we all get what we want. after all the end is open to POV more then any other in Star Wars Book's (one of the many reasons LOTF was badly written)--Sunray1 14:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Relax everyone! For those who think it should come back to Jacen Solo, Abyss has solved the problem. As it turns out in the book, it says that Jacen didn't die as Caedus, due to not dying with the anger and hate. He's a redeemed man! 70.181.44.225 16:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yet in the same book, there is mention that they really don't know whether that was really Jacen speaking, or whether it was one of Abeloth's tricks. Therefore he's still under Darth Caedus PointGiven(But...it was so artistically done...) 20:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

If I may be so bold as to contradict you, old boy... The young man's Sith eyes ceased to exist when Luke called him by his real name. And also draw your attention to the return of his Jacen-like behavior. No sense of darkness was there, I'm sure. Lord KOT 03:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The "OOU articles about real people" section is empty. Was the text inadvertently deleted from here, or was it moved somewhere else and the heading title left behind? Asithol 08:00, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

The heading was added here more than 5 years ago, and was empty ever since. Gulomi Jomesh 11:04, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

OK. Is the bogus heading something an administrator can remove as an obvious error, or does that change require formal approval by site consensus? Asithol 13:10, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that the articles on Galaxy and Star system are written in past tense (in line with the in-universe guideline, I suppose).

But how much sense does it make to refer to something like star systems or galaxies as something that exists in-universe independently of star systems and galaxies in the real world?

Don't get me wrong: I appreciate Wookiepedia's efforts regarding pseudohistory and the according necessity of using past tense when referring to anything pseudo-historical.

But the concept of e.g. a star system or a galaxy cannot be considered a part of pseudohistory, or can it?

Just asking as a curious outsider, because this keeps not making much sense imho. --213.168.119.144 11:30, July 21, 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how astronomical constellations are any separate from rest of the universe. (Even if we ignore the idea of the whole universe being able to form and disappear) Star systems and entire galaxies can form and destroy over the time; we assume it all was in the past (and isn't necessarily anymore). (: – Tm_T@Wookieepedia:~$ 12:39, July 21, 2012 (UTC)

There's also the point that keeping in-universe articles uniformly in past tense is a simple instruction, but determining which part of The Galaxy should be in present tense and which should be in past tense is complicated. Wookieepedia defaults to the simple instruction here, even for articles which arguably could be entirely in present tense. (See the seven-year-old discussion closer to the top of the page.) —Silly Dan(talk) 12:49, July 21, 2012 (UTC)

The notion of concepts such as galaxies does not die with a universe, not with a real one and definitely not with a fictional one. An article about galaxies in general (including their cultural and scientific discussion and description within the Star Wars franchise and fictional universe) might accurately say something along the lines of "At some point sentient beings ceased to exist in the universe, and with them, the description of galaxies became extinct." But what the article basically says is that the entire notion of a galaxy is a thing of the past. Which begs the question, from whose perspective is the article written? From the perspective of someone who doesn't have a concept of what a "galaxy" is? --213.168.117.36 17:31, July 24, 2012 (UTC)

When I wrote the article about Charal's stallion, I wondered if I was meant to refer to the steed by using either "it" or "he". 'm a French speaker, so I would have naturally used "he", as we known the horse is a male (a stallion, that is). But is it encyclopedic to refer to sexualized (not sure I'm using this word properly) animals as "he" or "she"? --LelalMekha (talk) 11:58, July 21, 2012 (UTC)

Plot summaries written by British editors stand out to me like sore thumbs. I wonder if it might be useful to others to add a note on using American grammar on collective nouns to the section on using American spellings. For a living, I often "translate" British news stories for an American audience, and the most common difference is that collective nouns take singular verbs in American English but plural nouns in British English.

For example, Americans would say: "The army was holding the hill," or "The army attacks the hill." Brits: "The army were holding the hill," or "The army attack the hill."

There are other minor differences, too, that are more of a matter of taste, but this is the only instance where British policy is blatantly "wrong" in American English.--Rpmdkc (talk) 08:50, February 26, 2013 (UTC)